Google sponsors over $150k of grants for female programmers

A grant system is intended to convince people to join a program which they are aware of, but for economical reasons would not choose.

One could argue that by creating "buzz", it has a secondary effect that causes outreach. Secondary effects however are not reliable, and using actually outreach to create outreach is to me a much better way than hoping that buzz create outreach.

The definition of "Outreach", is an method that are used to fill in the gap in the services provided by mainstream means, to the purpose of reaching groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services (In this case, education). This doesn't do that. Mozilla mentor program for example is one that does. Compare and see the difference.

women-exclusive classes do not work, and are indeed counter-productive. Any research of this has proven this point. When the Sweden government body tried it, it was found to be ineffective, counter-productive (created more separation between sexes), and declared illegal in the last years. Sadly, given the current gender politics, little money has been spent to answer why it failed, as it is easier to simply ignore the fact that it failed.

So to reiterate, This is not one of the solutions, its a illusion of an solution that do harm rather than good. It is worthless, because it do not work and causes harm. It is lazy, because other groups has shown (like Mozilla) how to do it right. In the real world, thats how progress work. You discard what is a step backward, and only use what is a step forward. Small step backwards are still backward steps.

What is baffling is how people keep disregarding any sense of scientific method. Just because a previous theory is thought to be working, one should not be ignorant to new information.

Programming is an ideal career for the introverted and "socially awkward". You don't need formal education, you don't need to talk to people, all you need is a computer and a book or internet connection, and most importantly, curiosity and desire to explore and learn about computers. You can't blame the lack of any of those on "boys' club" or "glass ceiling"; the best programmers are self-made, and nothing is stopping women from becoming top-notch hackers.

I think you are focusing on the wrong problem. Yes, it's true that men outnumber women in the field of programming, but guess what: non-programmers outnumber programmers much much more! Less than 5% of the people I know are programmers, and I work as a programmer. Why don't we try to make this profession more interesting to everybody, instead of focusing on just 50% of the people?

And they're useless dilettantes we should drum out of the profession, not double down on. Any scholarship that doesn't focus on obsession will merely switch names around on the mountain of garbage our industry is producing.

I feel the biggest contributors to change aren't large sums of money thrown at it. e-Learning, Bootcamps, or groups like ladies learning code, have, in my opinion, a better effect.

So then... your source? Because I'm sure if you talked to any random teacher, they would tell you that the lack of men in teaching is a problem with the industry. You're still not providing anything to back up your claims.

> after evaluating each individual on the basis of their merits, one may discover that the individuals who have been found to excel may belong to the same group.

So exactly what I thought. Which part of the brain makes women more inclined to teach grades K through 12? Which part makes men more likely to teach at the college level? Which part makes women not excel as much as men in programming?

> Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing.

Your first link doesn't show that women are less likely to be programmers. It actually shows they would be more likely, as they apparently excel at intuitive thinking, multitasking, and remembering.

That doesn't touch on the fact that I said "think a certain way". I didn't say they are exactly the same. I said there has not been definitive proof that men are hardwired to be programmers/leaders/managers/etc and women are hardwired to be nurses/teachers/caretakers.

> or African American male teachers.

So then, what's the problem? They're still men, which is apparently the defining factor. That comment doesn't really help your case here; it just makes you look petty and a little bit racist.

> Is there any grants that gives men money just for the fact that they have male genitalia and are willing to enroll in education?

Gender has nothing to do with genitalia. You really aren't informed on this topic, are you?

But those problems aren't specific for the IT industry. They're society-wide, and need to tackled on a much broader scale.

And in society at large, women are doing increasingly better. They are surpassing men in education (so it's definitely a good idea to take a good look at if there's anything that causes boys to fall by the wayside in the educational system), but that doesn't change the fact that there are still some industries that are remarkably sexist and/or inaccessible to women. And that's just not acceptable.